Blah, blah, blah...
The various Block iterations are deliberately confusing the issue. Here's today's example: Block 1+, which covers the timeframe between Block 1 and Block 1A, I suppose.
No:Quote from: NASAAs updates to Block 1 are still in work, Block 1A will be referred to as Block 1+So Block 1+ is actually Block 1A, probably the old configuration with advanced boosters and a small two-engine 70-tonne CPS.The "updates are still in work" comment probably refers to Block 1B.
As updates to Block 1 are still in work, Block 1A will be referred to as Block 1+
I continue to object to their intent to build the 130 ton LV first, before even proposing payloads and missions.
It seems to me that they do not have such intent. Hence Block 1B, which is just the "70-ton" version with a usefully large EDS added.
However, NASA is urged to identify and implement ways to accelerate the schedule for the attainment of the 130 ton configuration.
Quote from: rdale on 03/13/2013 04:15 pmInteresting look at SLS going to the moon...Thanks very much for posting.Block 1 + SLS, without DSH, and no SLS updates needed. Is HLR feasible? Yes.What have I been saying for the last few years?Build the damn rocket and start using it. Everybody's profit margin at the feeding trough would go up.What the problem is?
Interesting look at SLS going to the moon...
Now the EDS must be called upon to do the circularization burn. To me, this is ridiculous.
Why? It's not a big deal for the EDS and it simplifies the core. Also, I think the more even delta-V split from having the EDS do a significant burn to reach orbit results in a larger TLI payload. Certainly it does in the two-launch case you propose.If you really want to put a large chunk of inert cargo in LEO, I'm sure a small, cheap solid or hypergolic kick stage could be rigged to either do the circ burn or deorbit the core.
It starts sounding like a self fulfilling prophecy, with an absurd outcome: To get three or four astros to ISS in Orion, you need to have a 130 ton SLS, and a partially filled, mostly ballasted EDS.
Orion is plenty capable of doing a circ burn by itself, if it ever has to be sent to ISS on SLS (which hopefully it won't).As for lunar missions with a reusable lander, where Orion heads to L2 alone, you could either send a pack of supplies and/or propellant with Orion, part-fill the CPS (the mismatch isn't as dramatic in this case as it is with your proposed ISS mission), or just extend the ICPS contract and rename it the Itty-bitty Cryogenic Propulsion Stage or something like that. It's basically common with Delta IV, so there shouldn't be much extra cost.
NASA could certainly do something like what you propose. Just not with Block 1, by definition.
They could, but they don't want to.There is no physical principle which prohibits a comprehensive, multi-decadal lunar, lagrangian, or martian mission profile, using LEO assembly, and multiple launches of Block 1, the 70 ton (or tonne) version of the SLS.
No, there isn't - but to get the stack out of LEO you then need a propulsive element that doesn't count as part of SLS. An SEP tug. A chainable hypergolic stage. That sort of thing.If you want a large cryo EDS, which I see no good reason to avoid, it will be counted towards block incrementation, and you won't (by definition) have a Block 1 any more.
When you say "Block 1", you seem to mean "Block 1 plus EDS", which is what NASA calls "Block 1B".
...it's not funny when I say that, let alone the other guy.
A rover scratching at Lunar regolith is hardly a lunar colony...
Very good posts, John - very thorough.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/20/2013 01:35 pmA rover scratching at Lunar regolith is hardly a lunar colony...No. but if that were one of one years projects, with ten projects added a year (several lasting multiple years) and a single years additions concerned gathering regolith (scratching if you will) extracting volatiles, separating iron magnetically, sintering bricks, printing solar power panels, 3d printing with lunar feedstock, combining these to build airtight powered environments, and perhaps three more examples of scratching regolith because it is just so darn useful, and each year getting closer to the ability to build robots out of lunar materials using robotic labour while learning vast amounts about the lunar environment and teleoperation, that would be a darn sight closer to a lunar colony than what we currently have. And for $80m
Quote from: JFI continue to object to their intent to build the 130 ton LV first, before even proposing payloads and missions.Quote from: 93It seems to me that they do not have such intent. Hence Block 1B, which is just the "70-ton" version with a usefully large EDS added.You're probably aware of that other thread, where Shelby is quoted as having said:Quote from: ShelbyHowever, NASA is urged to identify and implement ways to accelerate the schedule for the attainment of the 130 ton configuration.So, we're going to just have to disagree on this point.
Private industry can do a lot of things: Park the empty core in a collection orbit. Collect half a dozen of the things over time, daisy chain them together, and start a lazy spiral outward to either L-point or lunar surface. Sell 'em back to the government, or to the highest ITAR'd bidder for private use as prerefined, premanufactured feedstock for lunar or l-point repurposing.
No, there is nothing useful
Uhhh.... [raises finger.] [not that finger.] Kemosabe? Isn't a Block 1B, well, Block 1? Like this one?
Block 1B is 70 ton SLS. EDS comes out of the 70 ton payload. Right, Kemosabe?
....Remember, there are three types of people: Those who can count, and those who have a sense of humor.
{snip}Lulu is really annoyed with Ino and says, "All right! I'll show you how to do Lunar ISRU!” Lulu sits down in front of the large screen and restarts the simulation program. Then, a bit confused, Lulu suddenly whispers to herself, “What? There's no Lander!"
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 03/20/2013 09:18 pmI continue to object to their intent to build the 130 ton LV first, before even proposing payloads and missions.Quote from: 93It seems to me that they do not have such intent. Hence Block 1B, which is just the "70-ton" version with a usefully large EDS added.Quote from: ShelbyHowever, NASA is urged to identify and implement ways to accelerate the schedule for the attainment of the 130 ton configuration.Quote from: JFSo, we're going to just have to disagree on this point.Uh, Shelby ≠ NASA...
So, we're going to just have to disagree on this point.
Private industry can do a lot of things: Park the empty core in a collection orbit. ...
Isn't a Block 1B, well, Block 1?
...no? It's a Block 1B, not a Block 1. Though I suppose that's a potentially valid way to look at it, especially since the core and boosters are identical in this case... it's just imprecise, and may give an impression of ignorance (it did to me).
Block 1B is 70 ton SLS. EDS comes out of the 70 ton payload. Right...?
Hence Block 1B, which is just the "70-ton" version with a usefully large EDS added.
Okay, let's clear this up. As far as I can tell, this is the current state of play:Block 0 (~70 tonnes LEO, 0 tonnes BEO)...Block 1 (>90 tonnes LEO?, 19 tonnes BEO)...Since Block 1 is a slightly more efficient use of the technology and infrastructure, $/kg (to LEO, at any rate) should be a bit lower than Block 0 if fully utilized. The key words being "fully utilized"...Block 1A (105+ tonnes LEO, 0-45 tonnes BEO)Block 1B (118 tonnes LEO, 43 tonnes BEO)...Block 1A and Block 1B are mutually exclusive options; the pivot point is the decision to proceed with the advanced boosters before/concurrent with the CPS, or not (respectively).Block 2 (>150 tonnes LEO, ~60 tonnes BEO)Block 2 is generally considered to not be a near-term configuration.
"Their" intent, NASA and Congress, is to build 130 ton SLS ASAP.
That "they" are calling the unmanned mission, and the Apollo 8 redux mission "exploration" is a reflection of how deeply Lackoff has influenced the truth decay that NASA and Congress practice.
Block 0: 70 ton SLS. Properly equipped with an EDS, and lander, capable of building a lunar base in 20 ton chunks.
Block 1: >90 ton SLS. 19 tons BEO. Properly equipped, could build a lunar base in larger chunks. Probably more than 19 tons.
Block 1A: 105 ton SLS. Due to technicalities, a completely different rocket from Block 1, somehow thought to be capable of putting as much as 45 tons BEO, even though only having but a 15 ton throw weight advantage over Block 1.
Block 1B: 118 ton SLS. Due to technicalities, a completely different rocket from Block 1A, not to mention Block 1, somehow thought to be capable of putting only as much as 43 tons BEO, even though it would have an 8 ton throw weight advantage over Block 1A.
Block 2 <150 ton SLS. Bypassing the 130 ton specification for no apparent reason
when they find the can that this administration has kicked.
The true bottleneck is the manufacture rate of the SLS. If they can only make 1 every other year
So, John, can I interpret your position as opposition to prioritizing the advanced boosters over an EDS and lander?Or is it deeper than that? I submit that it's a little late to rip up the plans for SLS and go back to non-stretched, non-heavy Jupiter...Did I imagine it, or did one of the DIRECT guys once say that they were staying quiet on their Stretched Heavy configs specifically so that NASA could claim them as their own?
Call it a Block 0B...
Block 0, as specified, has no EDS at all. It was a quick hack, a test rocket that was never intended to accomplish anything and was accordingly deemed superfluous.
Block 0 plus an EDS would have been perfectly capable of lunar missions.
Remember, a large part of the cause of the miserable schedule is simply the fact that the President, the OMB, and Congress have collectively failed to adequately fund the SLS program...
So, John, can I interpret your position as opposition to prioritizing the advanced boosters over an EDS and lander?...Did I imagine it, or did one of the DIRECT guys once say that they were staying quiet on their Stretched Heavy configs specifically so that NASA could claim them as their own?
You seem to be seriously ok with the suggestion you made. That after launching the $11B Ares rocket empty, in a redux of an unmanned, empty Mercury flight, NASA should consider designing, building, and launching a rocket that was deliberately "never intended to accomplish anything"?
Quote from: 93143 on 03/22/2013 10:27 pmSo, John, can I interpret your position as opposition to prioritizing the advanced boosters over an EDS and lander?He can be taught!
So, John, can I interpret your position as opposition to prioritizing the advanced boosters over an EDS and lander?
The 70 ton rocket will do the job, if only we had it to use. What's missing? Not the booster, the EDS! And then what? The P-word!All that other so-called "evolution", the part that's blind and only profit based, could be actually be "intelligently designed" [I know, taboo term] for actual accomplishment on a restricted budget. While they work on reducing launch costs by actually [gasp] launching payloads! There's no real rush to build the BFR.
....I'm with you here. I'd like to see the advanced boosters, but I'd like to see an L2 station servicing a growing moon base more.
You seem to be seriously ok with the suggestion you made. That after launching the $11B Ares rocket ...
I didn't suggest anything of the kind ... NASA wisely dumped it. (One could argue about which configuration ought to have been dumped, but one or the other had to go.)Also, NASA didn't spend anything like $11B on Ares I...
[Yes, more or less.]
Okay, I think we're pretty much done here.I had gotten the impression from your somewhat stylized rhetoric that you were unclear on what the actual situation was; what exactly the baseline was and what the upgrades entailed. I hope I have been able to help alleviate any excess confusion.
I'm with you here. I'd like to see the advanced boosters, but I'd like to see an L2 station servicing a growing moon base more.
.....Again, it's proper prioritization, not political prioritization, which is what is needed. Thanks for the history lesson. But:Where's the EDS? And where's the L-point station? And where's the lander?